MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Outcomes in patients (pts) with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) who discontinued (DC) first-line nivolumab + ipilimumab (N+I) or sunitinib (S) due to treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) in CheckMate 214.

2019· article· en· W2922056055 on OpenAlexaff
Nizar M. Tannir, Robert J. Motzer, Elizabeth R. Plimack, David F. McDermott, Philippe Barthélémy, Camillo Porta, Saby George, Thomas Powles, Frede Donskov, Christian Kollmannsberger, Howard Gurney, Asim Amin, Marc‐Oliver Grimm, Brian I. Rini, Yoshihiko Tomita, M. Brent McHenry, Sabeen Mekan, Bernard Escudier, Hans J. Hammers

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialDiarrheaAdverse effectGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

581 Background: The phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial demonstrated superior efficacy for N+I vs S in aRCC, although more patients discontinued N+I compared with S due to TRAEs. This is a post hoc analysis of outcomes in pts who DC N+I or S due to TRAEs. Methods: Untreated pts with clear cell aRCC were randomized 1:1 to N 3 mg/kg + I 1 mg/kg Q3Wx4 (induction) and then N 3 mg/kg Q3W (maintenance), or S 50 mg daily for 4 wk on, 2 wk off (6-wk cycles). This analysis includes all pts who DC due to TRAEs reported during extended follow-up (≤100 d after last study dose). Results: Of 550 N+I randomized pts, 135 (25%) DC due to TRAEs, most commonly increased ALT, diarrhea, and increased AST (all 3%); 64 (12%) of 535 S randomized pts DC due to TRAEs, most commonly increased ALT, diarrhea, and pancreatitis (all 1%). In N+I pts who DC due to TRAEs, 47% DC during N+I induction, 7% completed induction but no N maintenance, and 46% completed induction and received N maintenance (median [range] 8 [1–47] doses). At 30-mo minimum follow-up, ORR per investigator, CR rate, and 24-mo OS rate were higher in pts who DC N+I vs S due to TRAEs. Outcomes in pts who DC S due to TRAEs were similar to those in all S ITT pts and worse than in N+I pts who DC due to TRAEs (Table). At 24 mo, 42% of pts who DC N+I due to TRAEs were alive and free from second-line therapy. Consistent outcomes were seen in pts who DC N+I due to TRAEs across IMDC risk groups (data to be presented). Pts who DC N+I due to TRAEs experienced more immune-related select TRAEs and received more high-dose steroids (≥40 mg prednisone daily or equiv.), but times to onset and resolution and resolution rates of select TRAEs were similar vs all treated N+I pts. Conclusions: Discontinuation of first-line N+I due to TRAEs did not result in impaired outcomes, and a high proportion of pts remain alive and free from second-line therapy. Clinical trial information: NCT02231749. [Table: see text]

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designlow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.317 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designObservational · Other design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicRenal cell carcinoma treatmentFrench-language works237,207